Sull, you may want to update the link in the header of your crowdfunding.com blog so it points to the new pbwiki and not the deleted wikipedia entry.
-Mike On 5/2/07, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Speaking of Crowdfunding though.... > > > > I had moved the article here for anyone interested in editing it: > > http://crowdfunding.pbwiki.com/ > > > > and this is a cool project that has recognized Crowdfunding and is > looking > > for people interested in this topic to research, write and edit > material. > > It is a joint project between Wired.com and NewAssignment.net. > > Congrats, Sull! > > -- Enric > > > > > http://zero.newassignment.net/assignmentzero/crowdfunding > > > > Who needs wikipedia! ;) > > > > Sull > > > > On 5/1/07, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Sull, > > > > > > It may seem discouraging to have your content deleted but I've had > > > conversations with you in the past on the importance of verifiability. > > > Yes, > > > I nominated 'Crowdfunding' for deletion. However, other editors > voted and > > > agreed that it should not be a wikipedia article. It didn't > contain any > > > sources, the topic was non notable by Wikipedia standards and the > article > > > consisted entirely of original research. (A violation of > Wikipedia's core > > > content policies) > > > > > > See the discussion here: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowdfunding > > > > > > You also failed to mention that the 'Crowdfunding' article has been > > > deleted > > > on 2 other occasions in which I had no involvement or knowledge of. > > > > > > Yes, Mmeiser and I have been in an edit war over the Video blog > article's > > > content for many of the same reasons. For months I have tried to > discuss > > > the encyclopedic reasons for removing original research, > indiscriminate > > > links, and the need to cite content from the article. As responses, I > > > received long, ranting, personal attacks and he refused to address my > > > encyclopedic reasoning. > > > > > > What hasn't been mentioned yet is how Mmeiser recently sought the > help of > > > a > > > Wikipedia Administrator. The result was not surprising. > > > > > > a) The administrator did not reinstate the content. > > > > > > b) On the contrary, the administrator cited the important of > verifiability > > > and suggested to Mmeiser that he try editing content on a separate > page > > > and > > > have me look it over and give him suggestions before he place it > into the > > > article. (an extreme I still don't think is necessary as long as > he uses > > > citations when making contributions) > > > > > > I tried to extend an olive branch and asked that we work together > > > constructively to reintroduce the content with sources. (what i > had been > > > trying to do all along) He, once again, wrote a long rant, made > personal > > > attacks, and announced he was through contributing to the Video blog > > > article. > > > > > > To date, Mmeiser has contributed a total of one verifiable piece of > > > content > > > to the article. (which i have never deleted) > > > > > > It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like > those of > > > Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I > > > assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc > by group > > > members earlier. > > > > > > Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal > attacks > > > don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding > encyclopedic > > > content. > > > > > > Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people > contribute > > > encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and > myself. > > > For > > > the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to see more > > > happening to the article. Let's keep improving it. > > > > > > I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after > we've done > > > some work on it. > > > > > > Patrick > > > > > > On 5/1/07, sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <sulleleven%40gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > > that user was also responsible for the deletion of my article > > > > 'Crowdfunding'. > > > > and yes, meiser has been battling for months. > > > > fucking wikipedia. i dont have the time nor patience for such games. > > > > > > > > On 4/29/07, Michael Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<michael%40michaelverdi.com> > > > <michael%40michaelverdi.com>> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - > > > constantly > > > > > fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's > > > pathetic. > > > > I > > > > > can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the > article > > > > as > > > > > his changes usually get deleted within hours. > > > > > > > > > > - Verdi > > > > > > > > > > On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<jannie.jan%40gmail.com> > > > <jannie.jan%40gmail.com>< > > > > jannie.jan%40gmail.com>> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Has rather been decimated. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wow. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anybody? > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > The Faux Press - better than real > > > > > > http://fauxpress.blogspot.com > > > > > > http://twitter.com/fauxpress > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > http://michaelverdi.com > > > > > http://spinxpress.com > > > > > http://freevlog.org > > > > > Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
